D&D 4E Things from 4E Not Done Well

[Storminator]

I think the concept behind "Come and Get It" was good. I just don't like the implementation (even after the fix).

I would preferred, Cha vs Will, Bluff vs. Insight (or the allowance of Bluff to substitute Cha and Insight for Will depending upon if attacker or target) to lure the targets with failure pulling the target 2 square as in the power description. Anyone lured adjacent triggers an attack (Str vs AC) for 1[W] rather than, automatically, just taking the damage .

Few people want that amount of rolling in a single power (either from a table time or a probability to succeed standpoint). Frex, I consider your proposed implementation inferior to either of the 4e versions.

PS

 

[billd91]

One thing about 4e that I think is done poorly is how it handles stats, choosing your best one for your defenses and how this matches up with the stats a class wants to invest in.

I don't think it was wrong to start out with the premise that PCs could choose which one of the 3 pairings would affect your defenses. Where it goes wrong is in the way it doesn't balance off the classes and what stats they need with that change. Take, for example, the artful dodger version of a rogue. I can pretty safely dump 3 stats because the artful dodger has good synergy (or at least no whammies) with exactly one of each of those stat pairs - Dex (of course), Charisma (for artful dodging), and Con (for more surges). I can get by without Str, Int, and Wis which pretty much affect only my skills and leave me terrible at opportunity attacks. But if I want to be a brutal scoundrel, I now have to think about investing in both Strength AND Con. It's even more noticeable for fighters who want surges AND strength damage/hit bonuses. The mistake 4e makes is not making sure ALL classes can dump (or have to focus on as the flip side) the same number of stats. If I had my druthers, I'd consider making them all at least somewhat concerned with all 6 stats by making each one of the pairing the primary offensive stat and basing offensive powers off those and making the others purely defensive. For fighters, Strength affects attacks, Con determines Fort defense. This works great, conceptually, for Str/Con and even Cha/Wis pairings. The only pair it's iffy on is Int/Dex, but that pairing is always a little wonky, including within 4e now.

The way I see the stats, I want to have each one of them have some bite to them. I don't want there to be obvious dump stats for classes. I want all characters to have to grapple with the trade-offs of being multiple-attribute dependent in some way. A particular benefit may be relatively unimportant for certain character concepts, but I still want them to realize they're giving something up based on their build and that they have chosen to do so.

 

[Viking Bastard]

• Too many fiddly bits and they're too hard to ignore. Everything should be ignorable. 4e has way fewer fiddly bits that 3e had, but at the same time they are harder to ignore.
• Too much emphasis on one particular playstyle. 4e has a mean combat engine, but at some point the game has to move on.
• DM guidelines are sorely lacking. 4e is a very flexible system, much more so than most people seem to realize. But the game is so focused on that particular playstyle, that it gives you hardly any advice on flexing it.

 

[Greg K]

Few people want that amount of rolling in a single power (either from a table time or a probability to succeed standpoint). Frex, I consider your proposed implementation inferior to either of the 4e versions.

PS

You are mistaking your opinion as fact. You have no idea how many people would or would not want it. The only thing you can state for certain is that you and, maybe, the gamers that you know don't want it. That is anecdotal which I can counter with my own.

And, what I stated for the trigger is, basically, how I understand close burst and area effects to work. You roll an attack vs each target, but you only roll damage once (Ok, I was not clear on rolling the damage once and applying that to each target hit so I will concede that I wrote that portion poorly. And, personally, I would roll the initial attempt once and apply it against each target's defense).

 

[Storminator]

You are mistaking your opinion as fact. You have no idea how many people would or would not want it. The only thing you can state for certain is that you and, maybe, the gamers that you know don't want it. That is anecdotal which I can counter with my own.

Meh. It's all opinion here. . .

And, what I stated for the trigger is, basically, how I understand close burst and area effects to work. You roll an attack vs each target, but you only roll damage once (Ok, I was not clear on rolling the damage once and applying that to each target hit so I will concede that I wrote that portion poorly. And, personally, I would roll the initial attempt once and apply it against each target's defense).

You have 1 or 2 attack rolls and a separate damage roll per target, with up to 12 targets. That's potentially 28 individual rolls on one attack, assuming you get the second attack roll on 8 pulled targets. That's too many rolls.

It'd be hard to balance with the double attack roll required.

PS

 

[mlund]

Biggest problems with D&D 4E?

Class Spam instead of Customization

Every class was on a narrow rail from levels 1-30, with a little branches for half-a-tier at Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. Consequently, you needed an entirely new set of narrow rails for varieties.

Customization due to Feats was largely cosmetic, with a huge emphasis on a few core combat feats that gave ever-so-precious +1 bonuses. Feat-based multi-classing was a great idea with horrible implementation.

Give me a game with a core Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and Rogue with good default sub-classes in traditional roles and two alternative role sub-classes (like a Default to Wizard (Controller) with Sorcerer (Striker) and Swordmage (Defender) as alts.

If I want a Barbarian, I should be able to take a Slayer (Fighter Default: Striker) and use my Feat slots to trick him out down a path or small tree of "Primal" and "Rage" Feats. I shouldn't need a whole new stand-alone Class that no longer counts as being a Fighter.

Race Spam

Seriously, just stick to Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, and Gnome as your core brand. Leave the other races as parts of settings modules. Shoe-horning Tieflings, Dragonborn, Goliaths, etc. into the Realms kind of rubbed people the wrong way.

- Marty Lund

 

[NewJeffCT]

Biggest problems with D&D 4E?

Class Spam instead of Customization

Every class was on a narrow rail from levels 1-30, with a little branches for half-a-tier at Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. Consequently, you needed an entirely new set of narrow rails for varieties.

Customization due to Feats was largely cosmetic, with a huge emphasis on a few core combat feats that gave ever-so-precious +1 bonuses. Feat-based multi-classing was a great idea with horrible implementation.

Give me a game with a core Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and Rogue with good default sub-classes in traditional roles and two alternative role sub-classes (like a Default to Wizard (Controller) with Sorcerer (Striker) and Swordmage (Defender) as alts.

If I want a Barbarian, I should be able to take a Slayer (Fighter Default: Striker) and use my Feat slots to trick him out down a path or small tree of "Primal" and "Rage" Feats. I shouldn't need a whole new stand-alone Class that no longer counts as being a Fighter.

Race Spam

Seriously, just stick to Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, and Gnome as your core brand. Leave the other races as parts of settings modules. Shoe-horning Tieflings, Dragonborn, Goliaths, etc. into the Realms kind of rubbed people the wrong way.

- Marty Lund

Good list - I'd prefer they keep to fewer "core" races as well as fewer "core" classes. It was not just the Forgotten Realms that had to shoehorn in Tieflings, Dragonborn, Shifters, Wilden, etc - many other worlds didn't really have them at all, either. (Heck, I always had used minotaurs as ogre sized creatures with bull heads, not as a medium sized player race...)

 

[Greg K]

Meh. It's all opinion here. . .

It is ok to state you don't like it and even that you know people that would . It is bad form to claim that you know what the majority of people want.

You have 1 or 2 attack rolls and a separate damage roll per target, with up to 12 targets. That's potentially 28 individual rolls on one attack, assuming you get the second attack roll on 8 pulled targets. That's too many rolls.

It'd be hard to balance with the double attack roll required.

PS

no. I clarified in my response to your previous post that I meant for the damage roll to done once and apply to anyone hit just like with close bursts and area attacks (and, subsequently, edited my initial post to reflect this).

 

[Greg K]

Biggest problems with D&D 4E?

Class Spam instead of Customization

Every class was on a narrow rail from levels 1-30, with a little branches for half-a-tier at Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. Consequently, you needed an entirely new set of narrow rails for varieties.

Yeah, like Prestige Classes, Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, should have been optional.
Prestige classes were, often bad, because you were often jumping through hoops for cultural variants and other concepts that should have been available from the start using class variants ala Unearthed Arcana style class variants (which were, actually, menitioned way back in the 3.0 Players Guide and in the DMG which also talked about variant spellists in addition to tailoring classes, but saw almost no support until Unearthed Arcana) and skill swaps as per the Cityscape web enhancement.

Give me a game with a core Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and Rogue with good default sub-classes in traditional roles and two alternative role sub-classes (like a Default to Wizard (Controller) with Sorcerer (Striker) and Swordmage (Defender)

I would rather have 5 or six broad customizeable classes like True20 Revised. Spellcaster, Fighter, Expert and a couple of hybrid classes. Then use theme/backgrounds, skills, feats, talent trees or power selection to tailor to concept.

Race Spam

Seriously, just stick to Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, and Gnome as your core brand. Leave the other races as parts of settings modules. Shoe-horning Tieflings, Dragonborn, Goliaths, etc. into the Realms kind of rubbed people the wrong way.

Agreed, but Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance had different branches of elves. I think splitting the Elf into Elf and Eladrin (not necessarily with Feywalk) would cover the split and should be included.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Prestige classes were, often bad, because you were often jumping through hoops for cultural variants and other concepts that should have been available from the start using class variants ala Unearthed Arcana style class variants (which were, actually, menitioned way back in the 3.0 Players Guide and in the DMG which also talked about variant spellists in addition to tailoring classes, but saw almost no support until Unearthed Arcana) and skill swaps as per the Cityscape web enhancement.

Not to mention the near endless supply of "kits" in 2E with all those brownish-red books that had a dozen or more "kits" for each class and each race.